- > Books have got to be the least expensive form of entertainment out there. The value to cost ratio is incredible.
Hard disagree, lot of video game will give you a better hours of entertainment per dollars ratio.
Lot of sport will do the same, as will board games and roleplaying games. Lot of hobbies are cheaper than books.
- > Can someone tell me another effective way to combat book piracy that is not Amazon's way?
There simply no effective way to lock a book from copy while being able to read it. It will simply slow the process to free the book, at worst it will result in error or information loss (some links and fancy layout)
> There are authors to these books on Kindle, and they don't want their books free on the internet, it's Amazon's jobs to combat this. They have no choice but to DRM
We, as a civilisation, don't have to respect their wish. Free (as in beer) books are a necessity for a lot of people, and free (as in speak) book should be the norm, DRM introduce plenty of problem fir thé reader, with not a single added value for the customer.
- You don't really have to replace the microswitch, at least on my Logitech (M570) I can pull them open, bend the metal strip a little, close the switch back and I'm good for another year or two.
It's still tedious, as the metal strip is really small and is hard top manipulate, but far easier and less risky for the pcb than desoldering.
- The very same group did try to take down GTA V : https://www.collectiveshout.org/prostitution_survivors_call_...
- Restaurant aren't subscription based, you pay for a one-time meal.
The whole point of a subscription is to support an ongoing service _to you_, if your money is used to enshitify the service and make it work _against you_, there no point of paying it altogether, you will be better serve by piracy (as you don't provide them with money to enshitify it, nor to lobby against your interests).
- > This framing doesn’t make sense. It’s an ecosystem, and it’s not so much about “ignoring” things as much as it is about making active choices. If you go to a shopping district, there is nothing forcing you to shop at every store. If the district still has the stores you care about, shop at them.
There ton of people that won't go to some shopping districts because the rest of the area is an intolerable mess.
In the same spirit, look a Twitter/X, sure, there still plenty of people making good content there, but you can't deny that the website policies are steering it in a peculiar direction, and lot of users choose to leave Twitter entirely to not be complicit.
- She may have created the account abroad.
- So your whole argument is just cherry picking? Sure if you ignore everything wrong, you can say the system is alright.
- > Sure, there’s a lot of crap. But you don’t have to watch that.
But even non-crappy content will be steered toward some direction by the advertisement, most videos are made just long enough to fit whatever is the new optimum time for revenue per view. And some subject will be censored to not displease advertisers.
Some people are not doing that, but it's simply because they don't rely on YouTube revenues.
- Because if the service you pay for start to do what you expressively pay them not to do, your whole subscription since the beginning will feel like a waste.
Worst, your money was partially used against your interest, by financing people unilaterally altering a contract they made with you.
- Afaik Youtube cannot legally display ads to some countries' residents, it could explain this behavior.
- Paying make it worse, paying doesn't prevent ads to be forced later (e.g: Netflix, Prime, Disney+) and split people fight against ad, as the ones with enough money to avoid them will berate the other for not paying, will still providing benefits to an ad-driven company.
Never pays to avoid ad, block them or get the content by other means. It's akin to "never negotiate with terrorists" or "never pay ransom", you have to remove the incentive.
- That's UK.
- Why would E2EE hinder search ? Any clients could build or update the search index.
- Having one of your backups out of site will prevent its loss during a fire/flood scenario.
- > We do require ID to enter e.g. porn stores and bars though
Only if you look too young (and for the bars it's only for certain beverages), so the affected population is only a small parts of the customers.
- Some forum use custom backend, and updating them for an asinine law may not be the maintainer priority.
Having someone dedicated to contact with this authority is also a burden on hobbyist projects.
- > But you’re not the owner of a computer program that is merely licensed to you for your use.
For copyright purpose, you're still the owner of the _copy_, independently of what Nintendo say, you bought the cartridge, you're the owner of it (but not the licence right on the distribution of the game).
> Also, executing a copy of a program is violating the “for archival purposes only” provision. Once it’s being executed it’s no longer archival, it’s executive.
It is not, it's covered by the section I'm quoting.
> 1. https://www.nintendo.com/sg/support/switch/eula/usage_policy... 2. https://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/...
Nintendo wishes and words are not law.
- > A proprietary cart has a license that doesn’t include any provisions for installation. Thus, it is only authorized to be executed directly from the cart. So in the specific case I’m talking about, as opposed to your premature extrapolation, yes.
No, the wishes of Nintendo are not law.
> Copying the data from a cart to another system that isn’t directly executing the data from that cart is an illegal act.
Not it isn't, it's explicitly stated that making a copy to run the program is not a infringement[1]
117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
The copyright system as a whole should by torn up.
At least it give a clear signal to anyone with a ounce of moral which publisher to avoid at all cost.